[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190723151447.GO3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:14:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks seccomp-enabled userspace
on i386
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:04:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 2019, at 2:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:47:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't love this whole concept, but I also don't have a better idea.
> >
> > Are we really talking about changing the kernel because BPF is expecting
> > things? That is, did we just elevate everything BPF can observe to ABI?
> >
>
> No, this isn’t about internals in the kernel mode sense.
*phew*, I was scared for a wee moment.
> It’s about the smallish number of cases where the kernel causes user
> code to do a specific syscall and the user has a policy that doesn’t
> allow that syscall. This is visible to user code via seccomp and
> ptrace.
>
> Yes, it’s obnoxious. Do you have any suggestions?
Not really; I think I just demonstrated I don't fully understand the
problem space here :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists